People v. McCormick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCormick

302 A.D.2d 258, 754 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1478

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 258 (People v. McCormick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. McCormick, 302 A.D.2d 258, 754 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered July 14, 2000, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The evidence adduced at the hearing warranted the conclusion that the nontestifying officer who initially apprehended defendant did so after hearing a radio transmission containing a very detailed description of defendant as a person who had just sold drugs to an undercover officer (see People v Gonzalez, 91 NY2d 909). The conclusion that all members of the “buy and bust” team heard the identical radio transmissions is not undermined by the fact that the testimony of two officers differed as to their [259]*259recollections of the particulars of the description; this presented a factual issue that was properly resolved by the hearing court (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Accordingly, the testimony of the officer who apprehended defendant was unnecessary, the apprehension of defendant was based upon probable cause, and the prompt identification by the undercover officer was properly obtained. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered July 14, 2000, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The evidence adduced at the hearing warranted the conclusion that the nontestifying officer who initially apprehended defendant did so after hearing a radio transmission containing a very detailed description of defendant as a person who had just sold drugs to an undercover officer (see People v Gonzalez, 91 NY2d 909). The conclusion that all members of the “buy and bust” team heard the identical radio transmissions is not undermined by the fact that the testimony of two officers differed as to their [259]*259recollections of the particulars of the description; this presented a factual issue that was properly resolved by the hearing court (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Accordingly, the testimony of the officer who apprehended defendant was unnecessary, the apprehension of defendant was based upon probable cause, and the prompt identification by the undercover officer was properly obtained. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 258, 754 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccormick-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack